Heather Roy

Hon Heather Roy Valedictory Statement; Parliament; Thursday, September 29 2011.

Mr Speaker,

My introduction to politics came at the tender age of 20 in 1984.  They were exciting political times - Sir Robert Muldoon had called a snap election and Sir Robert Jones had launched a new party - the New Zealand Party.  For the first time I had a flicker of interest in what was going on in the political arena and Sir Robert Jones' youngest candidate was campaigning for my vote.  I liked his politics.  The freedom and prosperity message appealed, but I liked the candidate even more.  He got my vote that year - albeit a special vote because I hadn't enrolled - and I got him.  A vote is a precious thing, as is a husband and I think it was a fair trade.

12.5 percent of the population thought that a free and prosperous nation was something worth supporting in that 1984 election.  Under MMP that would have been around 16 seats for a Party that believes in freedom of market, mind, body.  I still believe fervently in those same ideals.

My next political encounter was many years later in 1996, the first MMP election when ACT was established as a political party.  Again, my involvement was through my husband Duncan.  He was electorate chair in Aoraki and I helped with pamphlet deliveries, hosting visiting MPs and organising meetings as you do.  In 1999 I was persuaded to stand.  I thought I was flying the flag.  Sir Roger Douglas and some of the party faithful decided I should be making a serious tilt at parliament and gave me an electable list position.  Luckily, with five small children, I didn't get in that election but politics gets in your blood.  I stuck with it and was elected in 2002.

My early Parliamentary life seemed destined for a time to be marred by the curse of mistaken identity.

When Deborah Coddington and I came to parliament in 2002 the then Speaker, Jonathan Hunt, couldn’t tell us apart.  Deborah – tall, dark and statuesque - and I (none of those things) just seemed to confuse him every time we stood to ask a question or speak.  It probably didn’t help the situation when we turned up to Parliament one day wearing men’s suits in response to his comments that the women in the House were dressing too scruffily.  So sometimes I was myself, sometimes I was called to speak as Deborah Coddington and once as Deborah Roy.  We eventually got our identities sorted out with the Speaker over a bottle of his very nice red wine.

Then there was the case of the swapped Bellamy’s bills.  Eric Roy, who had not returned to parliament when I arrived in 2002, was receiving my bills in Invercargill and I was getting his much smaller bills.  I recognised the problem when I was charged for the baking of a whole trout which I had apparently caught myself and supplied to the Bellamy’s kitchen.  Much to my father’s dismay I am no trout fisherwoman.  I rang Eric who complained about the amount I’d been spending and that he’d been asked to pay but we agreed to swap bills and sort the whole thing out when I was next in the south.  We duly did so and a Southland Times photographer kindly immortalised the moment for us.  And just for the record – despite constant speculation, Eric and I are not related – not brother and sister, father and daughter, second cousins twice removed and I’m not, as Eric once jokingly told a journalist, his love child.  We are however friends.

Finally, an on-going but pleasant mix-up usually begins with the comment “you’re from the south aren’t you?” I am originally, as it happens, but I know as soon as I’m asked that question the person thinks I’m former National Party MP Katherine Rich.  Clearly it is the healthy but pale southern complexion we share that causes the confusion!  Or perhaps it is that we share the same views on many issues.  Katherine, in her valedictory speech said that “Being an MP is not a job; it is a life. Political service is all-consuming, and the New Zealand public deserves nothing less.”  She is quite right, but the all-consuming is tough on families and I, like others, owe mine a lot.So, once my identity crises had been dealt with, I was able to get down to work. Most of my first term was under the watchful leadership of Richard Prebble.  His aim, he said, was to get us to Ministerial level by the end of our first term.  That meant being thrown in the deep end and is undoubtedly the best way to learn; like an apprenticeship of sorts – there was no namby pamby breathing through your nose for ACT MPs!

During his time in parliament, Richard Prebble left many legacies to the country.  Those I’ve personally benefited from most are his ‘Prebbleisms’: words of wisdom best adhered to or taken notice of if you know what’s good for you.  I frequently pass these gems on to others.

Amongst his best are:

“If you can’t say it in two minutes it’s not worth saying”.  This is true, I've discovered, of every conceivable topic.

“Don’t be scared of making mistakes.  MPs who don’t make mistakes aren’t doing their job”.  This was either given as advice to take some risks or as an unspoken reassurance that although you’d stuffed up, it probably wasn’t going to cause the sky to fall in.

“In Politics the highs are so high and the low’s so low”.  The highs include successes like the Voluntary Student Membership bill, and demotion from your Ministerial Portfolios rate amongst the lows.  Richard claims the highs always make up for the lows and in this he was absolutely right – no ifs, no buts, no regrets.  There is nothing like a solid political win.

And as to the truth or otherwise of this one – I’m about to find out.

“Keep in touch with the friends you have before politics because you can’t tell if the ones you make in politics are real friends or not until you leave”.  I think I've made many friends in my time here and established many respectful relationships with those across the political spectrum. I'm hopeful most will stand the test of time.

The apprenticeship served me well for my time as an MP.

There is nothing like coming up against a good Minister, while in opposition, to teach you the ropes.  Several Labour Party Ministers taught me valuable lessons about how to handle issues – although their aim was generally to tell me nothing.  Parliamentary Questions become your friend, as do the Official Information Act and the Ombudsman.

ACT battled for 12 years in Parliament before we formally became part of the Government.  I look back at the many talented and hardworking ACT MPs before me who would have been great Ministers.  Ken Shirley and Stephen Franks taught me by example that principles are important and sticking to them results in consistent policy gains.  Had they had the opportunity to become ACT Ministers, both would have made a real difference to the lives of Kiwis.

But in politics timing is everything and I found myself in the right place at the right time to be appointed to a Ministerial post with responsibility for Consumer Affairs, Associate Defence and Associate Education after the 2008 election.  Turning ACT policies into reality has been our big win.

School Choice is on the agenda, Aspire Scholarships for those from low income homes and a review into Special Education were big projects I was proud of leading.

Among my Defence highlights was participating in the Defence Review.  I continue to believe a strong Reserve Force will give the NZDF greater flexibility and capability and hope there will be real focus on this for the future.  My Companion Studies on New Zealand’s Defence Industry and Voluntary National Service raised interesting proposals for NZ Inc. and I would be very sorry if this work wasn’t useful as a base for future thinking.

Alongside Rodney Hide’s Regulatory Standards work and legislation, the Spending Cap (People’s Veto) Bill and Local Government changes I think ACT supporters and voters can be satisfied that our policy wins were significant.

Consumer Affairs is a great portfolio because it potentially covers everything.  As Minster I got letters about electricity, cell phone providers, credit services, suggestions on how to improve the design of men’s trousers and enquiries about how to deal with competitive tearooms on bus routes, but the most frequent theme was the price of milk.  I initiated and led the review and amalgamation of consumer law – the Consumer Law Reform project.

The moment I became the Minister I seemed to find myself in unusual Consumer Affairs situations: a salesman trying to sell me an extended warranty who only gave up after I told him that I personally was responsible for the education campaign to say they gave no better protection than the Consumer Guarantees Act – he’d just told me it was a crock – seeing for myself how an EFTPOS machine strategically placed on scales weighing fresh produce adds significantly to the price and most alarmingly being checked into an already occupied upmarket Auckland Hotel room complete with a Spanish speaking porter called Manuel doing a luggage swap in front of me.  If I ever decide to write a book there is plenty of material.  The working title will be "Consumer Traps: Beware the Manuel Factor".

Like my fellow retiring colleagues I have been honoured to have been elected to this House, to speak on behalf of the many Kiwis who have entrusted their vote to the ACT Party and, sometimes, to have my personal views on conscience issues heard.  There is nothing like being a Minister and getting things done.  Serving one’s country in this way is a rare and special thing and I thank those who over three elections have given me the opportunity to do so on their behalf.

Politics is the contest of ideas.  Situations change, people's attitudes change and the relevance of policies changes.  In order to keep up and for parties to remain relevant to voters, it is imperative that new ideas are encouraged, examined, researched and pursued according to their merit.  I'd like to think we have a Parliament that welcomes the contest, but I have been disappointed by the lack of courage to tackle entrenched problems with innovative solutions and a refusal often to even engage in reasoned debate.  Frequently, these issues only see the light of day as Private Members’ Bills.  On the very slim chance that a space would open up on the Members’ Order Paper in the past year, I drafted a Bill to allow nuclear propelled ships to once again visit New Zealand waters.  Our current policy is a relic of a bygone era with no relevance to modern life and is holding our country back in so many ways.  People will happily expose their bodies to the nuclear materials such as X-rays but won't even contemplate having a vessel propelled by nuclear power in a New Zealand harbour.  ACT has been the only party in my time here to want to engage in a debate that isn't dominated by hysteria and deliberate confusion.  The same is true regarding the youth minimum wage, education funding following the child and so many other issues.

Sir Roger Douglas personifies the contest of ideas.  He is a reformer and our Parliament has too few of his ilk; those who think out-side the square and tackle issues from a solid, principled base.  His endless optimistic pursuit of solutions to the really thorny problems our country faces is truly inspiring.  He is a numbers man and the numbers are usually explained on a serviette or in detail on a whiteboard.  Sir Roger says politics is all about numbers although now of course he's talking about different numbers - those that win a policy battle with a majority.  He's right, but politics is also about people and I have appreciated hugely his mentoring, his friendship and his unwavering support over many years, especially the past three.

There are a few things that I believe would make our Parliament work better and I hope the Constitutional Advisory Panel set up to conduct a wide-ranging review of New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements will give serious consideration to a 4 year Parliamentary term and have a discussion on the appropriate size of Parliament and the Executive, given the strong suggestion by Kiwis in 1999 to have fewer MPs.  I believe we need a mechanism to hold our Executive and Parliament more accountable – in other countries this is achieved with an Upper House.  And a position I have reached after being involved personally in a number of conscience votes is that referenda on conscience issues is worthy of serious consideration.  I’m not convinced that 120 MPs – or 122 currently – are any better placed to make decisions on issues of conscience than the adult population.

There are always a huge number of thank yous to make on occasions such as these.  I will be saving most to give in a more personal way.  However I would like to acknowledge and thank those who work tirelessly to make Parliament tick and to make life easier for MPs: the Clerk’s Office, Parliamentary and Ministerial services, the library staff, the messengers and especially the security staff who always ask how my TF training is going.

And I’d like to give a collective vote of thanks my hard working and loyal Party members who helped me get elected, then re-elected in the first place – the Aoraki team from 1996-2000 and my Wellington based teams in Ohariu and Wellington Central more recently.  I would like to specifically thank Dave Moore for his invaluable support.

To the ACT Parliamentary team past and present – heartfelt thanks for a job well done.  Our successes are your successes because of your commitment to our shared cause.  I also want to thank my loyal and supportive Ministerial team.  We had the some trying times as all do, but much more often we had the best of times.  You helped me work to my potential as a Minister and without you I wouldn’t have achieved half of that I did.

Finally, my family.  To Duncan, Johnny, Barbara, Penny, Finn and Jack. Thank you for your love and support, putting up with the constant phone calls and my frequent absences.  I hope that being around a lot more isn’t going to suddenly cramp your style, but I for one am looking forward to that enormously.  And when my mother calls for a chat, she will no longer have to end our conversations with “Well, just don’t work too hard”.  She has not set me a good example in this regard.

I have a good friend who reminds me that there are plenty of beaches to walk on and plenty of wine to drink.  Wise advice I intend to take. There will still be a few boundaries to push I suspect but perhaps at a more sedate pace!

In my maiden speech I noted that I was the 80th woman to have been elected to this Parliament.  I asked the Parliamentary library to calculate for me how many had left before me.  It turns out that I am also the 80th woman to leave this Parliament.  I have taken from this that the time is right for me to move on to other things – not a moment too soon, not a moment too late.  Timing in politics is everything.

As I look around the four walls of this chamber for the last time I’ll take particular note of the battlements: the 12 carved circular wreaths around the balcony and the 18 carved plaques on the wall panels, representative of battles and places where New Zealand troops have fought and served.  They remind me of the reason I came to this place – to continue the fight for our freedoms that our forebears began, for a prosperous nation, one where we all have the same opportunities.  Our freedoms are hard won with many New Zealanders having paid the price with their lives.  Freedoms hard won, but so easily eroded.  I have been honoured to serve my country in this House and I hope those in the 50th Parliament and beyond will also be reminded of their responsibility to uphold our freedoms.

I wonder, Mr Speaker, if I could make a request before I leave this chamber.  There are some battlements missing from our walls: the first Gulf War, Afghanistan and our recent peace keeping missions are not represented despite the fact that our Defence Force personnel have participated with the same courage, commitment and distinction as those who served before them.  They too have suffered injury and, in some tragic cases, loss of life in their quest for freedom around the world on our behalf.  I know my fellow soldiers would be touched by such a gesture and it would seem entirely fitting.

Lest We Forget.

Hon Heather Roy Third Reading Speech; Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill; Parliament; Wednesday, September 28 2011.

Mr Speaker,

It gives me great pleasure to lead the debate on this third reading of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill.  Voluntary Student Membership has been a test of patience and many thought this day might not come at all in this Parliamentary term.

Others hoped it would not and around 0.1 percent of New Zealand's 400,000 or so tertiary students protested against the bill earlier this week, along with a handful today on Parliament’s lawn.  I encourage Kiwis to be actively involved in their democracy because freedom of speech and freedom of action are important rights that should not be denied.  There is a certain irony that these rights have been used to oppose another fundamental civil right - freedom of association for students but none-the-less I staunchly defend these students’ right to do so.

Opposition to issues is frequently noisy, while support is often silent.  This post of support from a Canterbury University student appeared on my Facebook page yesterday: "I feel strongly about the freedom to choose and I know many others that feel the same.  Please also remember to hear the silent voices of those of us who do support you.  We don't need to make a huge ruckus out of it because we're sensible people supporting a sensible bill".

Voluntary Student Membership means students, from 1 January 2012, will no longer be compelled to join a Student Union before they are allowed to study at a tertiary education institution.  They will instead be free to choose whether or not they join an organization that as an Incorporated Society has the same legal status as the Automobile Association or the SPCA.  We don't force motorists to join the AA before they can own a car or force pet owners to join the SPCA.

Student Unions were originally voluntary organisations and this bill returns student unionism to its roots.  Over recent decades they have become increasingly politicised when their core functions are meant to be representation of their student body - not just a select few, advocacy and the provision of some services.  The University and Polytechnic councils provide other services such as health and welfare services.

There has been much talk during the course of debate surrounding VSM about huge opposition from students with the figure of 98 percent frequently quoted by the Bill’s opponents.  Let's be very clear about this figure.  It refers to submissions opposing the Bill at Select Committee.  This was essentially a copy and paste campaign, like a petition, conducted by student politicians en masse.  By comparison a Stuff poll last October had almost 5,000 votes and showed 72 percent were in favour of voluntary membership.

Misappropriation of Students’ Association funds has become a significant problem in the past few decades.  The fraud has ranged from the farcical $6,000 spent by a VUWSA executive member phoning a psychic hotline through to the large scale embezzlement on several occasions at Whitireia Polytechnic totalling around $750,000.  These all too regular examples of fraud proved the need for action.  Compulsory membership has created an environment conducive to financial mismanagement.  Student Unions are governed and managed by young people who often lack the necessary management skills and experience to run a multi-million dollar business and a captive market of students who cannot vote with their feet if their funds are mismanaged.

Voluntary membership means associations will have to attract membership to gain funds then provide the representation and services students want in order to keep them.

There has been much talk in this debate about Australia’s experience of voluntary membership, or VSU as it’s known across the Tasman.  Those opposing the Bill have conveniently ignored the Student Unions that have not only survived but thrived under Voluntary membership.  The University of West Australia stands out as an example for the rest.  Amid the doomsday predictions promulgated by the left, they retained 60 percent of their members under VSU and have continued to provide valued services to their members.

Looking to the future in New Zealand my intention was never to destroy Students’ Associations, but to give students free choice of belonging or not.  I hope that associations will put as much effort into planning for the future as they have put into planning their protests.  I hope to see Students’ Associations actively promote the benefits of membership by:

• Using quality communication with students to find out what they want, preferably using 21st century communications, as students do;

• Conducting quality market research on what services students actually value and are prepared to join to access;

• Affordable membership fees;

• Innovative incentives to join, such as discounts for members at student association bookshops and cafes and negotiated discounts with local retailers;

• Focussing advocacy on those issues which almost all students agree on such as increasing the quality of education and increasing accountability of tertiary institutions to students.

When students see an organisation providing representation and services they value they are much more likely to join.

There are many people to thank and acknowledge in this journey which spans at least 20 years.  The battle started with the Freedom on Campus Network and has progressively been carried forward by Prebble's Rebels, ACT on Campus, the Young Nats, Student Choice and my ACT Party colleagues present and past.  I would like to also thank the Select Committee members so ably chaired by Allan Peachy and the Select Committee staff who dealt with the large number of submissions and submitters.  Thanks also to all submitters - both those supporting and those opposed to the bill.  As a result of your contributions several changes were made to the Bill that have made it much better.  To the officials from the Ministry of Education and PCO, my grateful thanks for your expertise, sage advice and most notably your cheerful patience to a process that ended up being much longer than was intended.

To Sir Roger Douglas, thanks for your Midas touch - I don't know anyone luckier at having bills drawn from the ballot and for shepherding VSM through the Select Committee process.  And my grateful and sincere thanks to the staff in my office who have researched, advised, written, agonised and become very good at understanding parliamentary process because of their absolute belief in and commitment to freedom.

It is harder to say it any better than Andrew Little in his final address as President to the EPMU:

“I believe voluntary unionism - true freedom of association - gives the union movement much greater strength and a much greater moral authority.”

My final thanks to the National Party Caucus and United Future for their support of Voluntary Student Membership.  Freedoms are hard won and so easily eroded.  Parliament’s gift to students tonight is freedom of association.  Please be sure to use it wisely.

Retirement Age Unsustainable at 65

The Retirement Commissioner Diana Crossan says it frequently, former Treasury Head John Whitehead and current Treasury secretary Gabriel Makhlouf advised government it is so and well known economists Gareth Morgan and Bernard Hickey and others have also joined the chorus in recent weeks – New Zealand cannot afford to continue paying superannuation to kiwis when they turn 65. All believe the retirement age must gradually rise to 67.

ACT believes this too, but unfortunately no other political party will touch this hot potato in election year, or any time soon it would seem. Yet the fair thing to do is start a transition period now so that those it affects soon won’t be disadvantaged and younger kiwis can start preparing now.

New Zealand’s Superannuation scheme currently costs around 4% of GDP. This is relatively low for a western country but it is forecast to rise to 7.3% by 2035, and money to fund this has to come from somewhere. In 1950 the life expectancy of a pensioner was just 67.2 for men and 71.3 for women, meaning on average pensioners were only expected to live for around five years on superannuation. Today the age of eligibility remains the same, yet life expectancy for men is now 78 and women 82.

In fact it is clear from a wide range of experts that a retirement age of 65 is unsustainable.  Treasury has predicted that by the mid-2020s New Zealand would have to either increase GST to 19 percent or raise income tax by an average of $30 a week just to continue paying for existing entitlements.  Faced with such dire numbers the least parliament – both government and opposition - could do is consider advice on the matter. This is an important issue for our nation and economy and one that requires cross-party support and decisions that won’t be tampered with by subsequent governments.

At present everyone receives National Super at age 65 whether they continue to work or not.

The Retirement Commissioner is required to examine the government’s retirement income policy every three years.  Commissioner Diana Crossan lashed out at the government’s rejection of her review findings that the age of eligibility for NZ Super be gradually increased to 67 by two months a year up to 2033. She pointed out that politicians burying their head in the sand would not solve this looming problem. “It's crucial that we make changes now, so that today's 45 year olds and younger Kiwis are able to receive New Zealand Super in the future. Why wait until we have to raise the age suddenly in 10 years time? We can't keep ignoring this issue," Crossan said, and she is absolutely right.

The 2025 Taskforce in their most recent report also commented on this issue saying that “New Zealand should lift the age of eligibility for New Zealand Superannuation beyond 65, as Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States and other countries are doing, and also draw a clear link between life expectancy improvements and future increases in the eligibility age”.

I asked Finance Minister Bill English in Parliament yesterday whether former Treasury Secretary John Whitehead, Retirement Commissioner Diana Crossan and commentators Bernard Hickey and Gareth Morgan are all wrong in calling for the retirement age to be raised – as is being done by Labor in Australia – his answer was simply that these people “should run for office” if they wanted to have more say on the retirement age.

The Government pays experts like Mr Whitehead and Ms Crossan to give free and frank advice.  It is unacceptable for Mr English to tell them to ‘run for office’ merely because his government does not want to hear the home truths they are quite rightly telling him.

Internationally, New Zealand is totally out of kilter with how other nations are responding to ever increasing life expectancy. Australia will slowly lift the age of eligibility by 6 months every two years from 2017 so it reaches 67 in 2023, meaning everyone has time to prepare for the change. The UK will slowly lift their age to 68 by 2046 and the US will lift theirs to 67 by 2022.

Prime Minister John Key has repeatedly stated he will resign rather than put the age up. All demographic figures suggest that raising the age is inevitable and the very worst that the Government can do is delay the inevitable and leave the problem for future generations to deal with.  ACT believes that it would be far more caring for the Government to give retirees time to plan for their future by raising the age over a long transition period than it is to take the John Key “not on my watch” approach that we are left with at the moment.

Lest We Forget

This weekend I will be joining my Army Unit (5 Wellington, West Coast, Taranaki Battalion Group) for a Charter parade in New Plymouth. Each year at the beginning of August we commemorate the Battle of Chunuk Bair which took place between the 7th and 19th of August 1915. The assult on Chunuk Bair, which the Wellington Battalion played a crucial role in, was commanded by Lt Col. William Malone, from Taranki and who had ties to the Army Unit to which I now belong.

The Battle of Chunuk Bair was fought in August 1915 between the Ottoman defenders and troops of New Zealand and Britain on Gallipoli peninsula. The capture of Chunuk Bair, the secondary peak of the Sari Bair range, was one of the two objectives of the Allied August Offensive launched at Anzac and Suvla in order to break the stalemate that the campaign had become. The capture of Chunuk Bair was the only success for the Allies but success was short-lived as the position proved untenable. The Ottomans recaptured the peak after a few days and didn’t relinquish it again.

The assault on Chunuk Bair took place on 8 August. The fight raged all day until the trenches were clogged with the New Zealand dead. Around 5 p.m. Lt Col. Malone was killed by a misdirected artillery shell, fired from either Anzac or a British ship. As we parade in New Plymouth this weekend we will remember his contribution to our freedoms. The Army now has a scholarship scheme for Reservists in honour of Malone.

ENDS

The Government is taking advantage of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill to push through a ban on Kronic and Kronic like substances.

ACT believes that these substances should not be sold freely to those under 18. However adults, as owners of their own bodies and lives, should not have such a blanket ban imposed on them. Could the prohibitionists please cite one example where prohibition has actually worked? 

Click here for a copy of ACT's Supplementary Order Paper, containing our proposed amendment.